This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Atlanta Ousts Fire Chief Who Has Antigay Views

Originally Posted by justabubba

[emphasis added by bubba]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/op...ment.html?_r=0
finally it appears we have identified why the fire chief was terminated: "dismissed Mr. Cochran for what he called poor judgment: specifically, for failing to get approval for the book’s publication, for commenting publicly on his suspension after being told not to, and for exposing the city to possible discrimination lawsuits"
before i get into this let's also observe what the fire chief was NOT terminated for doing: "the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians"
this is a very important distinction. there is NO evidence that the fire chief acted in any discriminatory manner. however, he was fired because he could have exposed "the city to possible discrimination lawsuits". but we now know that he did not so so. once again, there is NO evidence that the fire chief discriminated against any of his staff. but he was terminated because he might. how just is that as a basis of termination?
let's go to the issue that he failed to get approval for writing this book. the fire chief insists he cleared it with the ethics official and the ethics official does not say he did not. however, the mayor now objects insisting that the fire chief failed to seek and obtain the mayor's approval. now, why would the fire chief, after obtaining the OK from the designated ethics official, feel the need to pursue this matter at a higher level?
and while the city of atlanta placed the fire chief on suspension it forbade him from commenting publicly about the matter. a matter he did discuss while in his church, while not having received any compensation from the city. so, it is OK to withhold one's salary but then tell them that they cannot discuss a matter that impacts them. and yet there are those who will still insist this is not a first amendment matter, where the city of atlanta believes it can deprive a citizen of free speech and then terminate him for exercising that right
personally, i abhor the position the fire chief took in his book. but i similarly dislike those who tout their pro-life viewpoints to the detriment of personal choice. i don't like it when trim managers express a dissatisfaction with those who allow themselves to be out of shape. but this is not about what i or anyone else likes or dislikes about one's personal opinions. one's actual performance should be determinant about how the employee comported him/herself on the job. and as was shown above, in no way has the fire chief acted in a discriminatory fashion, despite what he has written
here is the mayor's expectation: [this case is] about making sure that we have an environment in government where everyone, no matter who they love, can come to work from 8 to 5:30 and do their job and then go home without fear of being discriminated against
and we find that NO one was actually discriminated against. that's the fact of the matter. but how realistic is the mayor in expecting no employee should be "without fear of being discriminated against". we cannot control an employee's fearfulness. the mayor's expressed expectation is an unreasonable one. one that should not result in the termination of a fire chief who, after investigation, was found to have not engaged in discrimination
this is a bogus termination

"Opening the city up to discrimination lawsuits." That's what several of us have been saying all along. It opens them up to liability when employees come with complaints about being fired or not promoted, etc because they are gay. Because right there, there is corroborating evidence of their complaints. Not proof, but evidence.

And according to what was posted, employees complained about the book so it's likely they have reason to do so. There may be complaints already lodged against him that were not solid enough to act on (which we have also discussed at length here.)

We still dont know that....it's very possible those complaints are confidential unless there is legal action.

Originally Posted by Bucky

I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.

Originally Posted by applejuicefool

A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

Re: Atlanta Ousts Fire Chief Who Has Antigay Views

Originally Posted by Cardinal

No, actually not. As I told WHC, he decided to make his beliefs a work issue, and that's what's at heart here. Now, if you told me that one of his employees followed him after work to his church where they recited anti-gay statements, and then reported back to the Mayor's office thus getting the chief fired, then that would certainly be different (and would open an entirely separate can of worms best left for another thread*). But as the Chief he brought his beliefs into the workplace and made it a departmental issue. So, to recap...

1. He was not fired for his beliefs, he was fired for making his beliefs a workplace issue.
2. He was not arrested for stating his beliefs, thus his first amendment rights were not infringed.

I doubt you have the vaguest idea whether his First Amendment rights were violated. If you think you do, please cite the case law that supports your claim.

I detest even more that it must still be said. People who believe that free speech has no exceptions would probably be surprised to learn about laws against libel and slander. But then, you'll notice how often that speaking out against [fill in undesirable demographic here] is protected by the first amendment, yet criticizing that person's belief is suddenly no longer free speech, but rather "infringing on that person's freedom of speech." Convenient that, no?

You're right that the First Amendment doesn't protect defamatory speech. Doesn't protect obscenity either, or "fighting words," or, as you suggest, speech that creates a clear and present danger of lawless action.

But since when is criticizing a person's belief "suddenly no longer free speech?" What on earth are you talking about?

Sexual orientation is protected under the EEOC. But since you brought it up, if the Chief had handed out books condemning black people or Jews this thread would have ended on page three.

An administrative rule doesn't mean a damn thing if it violates something in the Constitution. And your hyperbole is pretty transparent. The speech quoted from the booklet did not even come close to "condemning" homosexuals as persons. It merely expressed a religious belief that homosexual acts were vulgar and unclean. Millions of Americans believe the same thing, and they should be able to express that view in passing at their workplace without fear of retaliation.

a school teacher who made a pornography video on her own time, some parents found out about it (wonder how they did that?), and the teacher got fired.

What of it? Teachers, especially ones involved with young children, have moral responsibilities that might not apply in other jobs. If she had casually joked to parents at a parent-teacher meeting about the bestiality parties she hosted at her house, should they just have shrugged it off because it took place on her own time? How about if she belonged to some cult that tortured small animals to death for fun on weekends? What if a third-grade teacher had mentioned having sex with young boys on his NAMBLA camping trips? What the hell says parents have to tolerate degenerates teaching their kids?
i

Re: Atlanta Ousts Fire Chief Who Has Antigay Views

Originally Posted by Lursa

"Opening the city up to discrimination lawsuits." That's what several of us have been saying all along. It opens them up to liability when employees come with complaints about being fired or not promoted, etc because they are gay. Because right there, there is corroborating evidence of their complaints. Not proof, but evidence.

And according to what was posted, employees complained about the book so it's likely they have reason to do so. There may be complaints already lodged against him that were not solid enough to act on (which we have also discussed at length here.)

We still dont know that....it's very possible those complaints are confidential unless there is legal action.

yep
once again its just common sense this guy was fired, i dont understand how the guy was THAT dumb
anybody that would do this and not expect there to be consequences including being fired is an idiot

This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!Make America Great Again!Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Re: Atlanta Ousts Fire Chief Who Has Antigay Views

Originally Posted by Lursa

"Opening the city up to discrimination lawsuits." That's what several of us have been saying all along. It opens them up to liability when employees come with complaints about being fired or not promoted, etc because they are gay. Because right there, there is corroborating evidence of their complaints. Not proof, but evidence.

i don't disagree with you one iota
but here is the point
you terminate someone for the wrong doing he actually committed
NOT for that which he might commit

And according to what was posted, employees complained about the book so it's likely they have reason to do so. There may be complaints already lodged against him that were not solid enough to act on (which we have also discussed at length here.)

We still dont know that....it's very possible those complaints are confidential unless there is legal action.

what that NYT board editorial tells us is that the investigation revealed NO instance of discrimination by the fire chief
because he published his views, if he actually engages in discriminatory behavior - as you noted above - his own words will reveal that his discriminatory actions were consistent with his discriminatory views
but we don't have that. there are no discriminatory actions
because nothing other than his publication indicates a personal bias. one not evident in the work place. he has not acted on his personal bias
it's a bogus termination
i hope he takes it to the courts for a jury of his peers to decide whether this was a justifiable termination action

we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it ​

Re: Atlanta Ousts Fire Chief Who Has Antigay Views

Originally Posted by matchlight

An administrative rule doesn't mean a damn thing if it violates something in the Constitution. And your hyperbole is pretty transparent. The speech quoted from the booklet did not even come close to "condemning" homosexuals as persons. It merely expressed a religious belief that homosexual acts were vulgar and unclean. Millions of Americans believe the same thing, and they should be able to express that view in passing at their workplace without fear of retaliation.

It looks to me like the main core of your issue is a beef with gays in general than about any supposed infringement of the first amendment. But understand that just because you happen to agree with a particular bigoted sentiment doesn't mean that creating a hostile workplace environment is acceptable. It just means that it's your accepted bigoted sentiment.